Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

I have noticed that the article Tennis in the United States is largely outdated and there is a notice about a possible need of rewriting the article as a whole. I don’t know how this could be resolved, so I thought it would be helpful to reach out to you for ideas Haddad Maia fan (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be a trend of prematurely creating tennis season articles without first establishing whether the subject will ultimately be notable. Recent examples include the pages for 2026 Aryna Sabalenka tennis season, 2026 Iga Świątek tennis season, and 2026 Elena Rybakina tennis season, all of which have been moved to draft space. This practice disregards the WP:TOOSOON guideline and the specific WP:TENNISSEASON criteria. Rather than serving an encyclopedic purpose, these creations seem to be a form of fandom—made for the sake of having them, without a proper assessment of future notability. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Same on the ATP side: 2026 Jannik Sinner tennis season, 2026 Carlos Alcaraz tennis season. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe that either those editors don’t get the real idea behind creating those articles or they create them because they think those are top ranked players and for that reason they will always have an article about each and every season they play in, which is far from the truth Haddad Maia fan (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mannyhernandezz: Please stop creating pages over or even copied from a draft, as you have done so to 2026 Aryna Sabalenka tennis season and 2026 Coco Gauff tennis season. Either of the articles could establish their notabilities and currently fails WP:TENNISSEASON, which ends up in AFDs. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Throughout the whole of 2026, Women in red is focusing on women in sport. This provides opportunities for creating biographies of notable women in a wide variety of sports, including tennis. If you are not already a member of Women in Red, feel free to join up under "New registrations" here.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I really like adding old drawsheets because I feel like I am filling an easy gap to fill in the records but every time I do the page gets taken down, this has happened with this page: Draft:2009 Città di Caltanissetta – Doubles and this one Draft:1966 Australian Championships – Men's doubles even though they are a one to one match of the subsequent years pages. I really wanted to add that Ciita drawsheet too as it's the last one necessary to complete 2009. Is there an editor higher in the tennis project who can either approve these pages and future drawsheets I may publish or at least tell me what exactly I am doing wrong? Regards, Hiyouboots (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hiyouboots: Sometimes it just depends on whom you get to review. But you needed some inline citations for the lead section. That shows it's notability. I added them and changed the wording to more fully represent the event in question. Thanks for doing this and I added it to main space. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I plan to continue adding drawsheets. I will try to include more inline citations but if it is rejected how should I proceed? Should I just reach out to you again? Hiyouboots (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Most of the time when a draft is rejected, the editor who rejected gives the reason why it was rejected, so you can always make sure on what needs to be improved Haddad Maia fan (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately many newer draws lack the proper inline citations. There are plenty out there, the creator of the article just didn't use them. If you look at 1939 Australian Championships – Men's doubles it has seven sources including the external links. That's more of what should be strived for. The draws for the four majors are actually high on our project's priority list per our Grand Slam Project. There is just so much new stuff that those get lost in the shuffle. But yeah... bring it here if it gets rejected and we'll spiff it up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Inspired by discussions around low-visibility talk pages in other WikiProjects, I would like to suggest a small test section here aimed at assisting with low-traffic or lesser-known tennis-related articles.

The idea would be to create a space where editors can ask for help with articles that may be overlooked due to limited visibility — such as pages on lower-ranked players, junior or ITF-level tournaments, historical events, or articles that do not regularly attract experienced editors. Requests could include asking for second opinions on proposed changes, help with sourcing, notability assessment, structure, statistics, or general copy-editing.

This would not replace existing processes, but rather complement them by giving editors a focused place to seek attention for articles that might otherwise struggle to improve. If implemented, the section could be archived and recreated as needed, depending on length and activity, to keep it manageable.

If there is interest, I’m happy to help maintain the section during a trial period. Feedback on whether this would be useful for WikiProject Tennis is very welcome. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. I also note that dozens of tennis articles remain unsourced. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed that as well and already suggested we should create a permanent section here for people to point out those articles Haddad Maia fan (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, I searched for sources on this specific article you requested, but it only appeared some news about the golf tournament of same name Haddad Maia fan (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I've proposed merging this into 1988 in tennis. If you agree, just do it. If you disagree, please discuss. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Tennis editors,

I am seeking guidance regarding the notability and potential eligibility for a Wikipedia article about Ignacio Parisca, a professional tennis player.

Ignacio has competed in ATP Challenger events and holds an official ATP singles ranking. He has also received coverage from independent tennis media outlets (links can be provided upon request).

As I have a professional connection to the player, I understand the conflict-of-interest guidelines and do not intend to create the article myself. I would appreciate any feedback on whether his career meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for professional tennis players, and what additional sourcing would be required for independent editors to consider drafting an article.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Kind regards, Wikiproposal2026 (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The Tennis WikiProject's guidelines for notability would suggest that he currently does not meets the required standard, as he hasn't made an ATP Tour main draw or won a Challenger title. I would advise focussing on his tennis career instead of trying to get a Wikipedia article created. Iffy★Chat -- 16:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I would like to ask whether there is someone here responsible for overseeing tennis-related pages. I have been actively working on improving these pages for several years, in line with existing rules. However, over time it has become clear that certain elements require updates, which usually involves discussion and agreement around potential changes. In the past, my contributions were generally well received, and I consistently tried to build constructive, professional collaboration with others involved.

That said, whenever I raise a question or propose an improvement (for example, here), I often receive no feedback at all, or responses only from a single user whose behavior I find difficult to work with. I understand that person’s position, but it is hard to believe that all responsibility rests with one individual. There should be others involved so that collaboration does not feel centralized or personal. I am fully open to accepting suggestions or criticism; the challenge arises when I notice uneven application of rules—where I receive warnings for certain changes, while similar situations are handled more leniently with other users. More importantly, I have observed that consensus is sometimes reached unilaterally, based on personal preference rather than collective agreement.

A recent example is the Jason Kubler page, where I updated a table format that has been discussed for years as needing improvement. I had previously shared proposals—both here and elsewhere—on how the table could be redesigned, but received no response. After my change was reverted, I did not attempt to reapply it. Nevertheless, I was warned based on unrelated disputes from the past, even though this situation had no connection to them.

Over the years, my consistent goal has been to improve tables and overall quality. Disagreements naturally arise, especially when opinions differ, but my intention here is not to argue with anyone. I genuinely want to understand how this process is meant to work and who is responsible.

If our shared objective is to make these pages as good as possible, cooperation is essential. Unfortunately, this user does not provide that level of collaboration, which is disappointing. While the content itself may not be compromised, the approach and communication are, in my view, unprofessional. What discourages me the most is not criticism, but the lack of constructive engagement and the ongoing difficulty, over many years, of reaching other administrators who could help facilitate balanced discussion and resolution—for me and for others as well.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

A wikiproject talk page is not an adminstrator page. Wikiprojects don’t own articles and their members don’t take administrative actions. If you want help from administrators, there’s the adminstrators’ noticeboard or the if there was a specific incident, you can go to their incident noticeboard. Alternatively you can seek dispute resolution.

That being said, I can’t see why you’re so obsessed with changing the performance timelines. I just don’t see a need for that. Tvx1 13:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately these are all content disputes, which admins don't get directly involved in. Changing a bunch of long-standing tables across a number of articles is a significant change; I would suggest opening an WP:RFC here clearly showing the change you want to make and then explaining why you think your version is better. Iffy★Chat -- 13:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This poster has very selective memory on this issue as I just posted on his page. Nothing to see here. And RfC's are usually after you do a post or two explaining the situation and testing the waters. This has already happened on these charts and was shot down. The coding is not wiki MOS compatible, event names are removed, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there documentation anywhere for this template? It, and the parent templates such as Template:FedCupbox and Template:DavisCupbox are virtually undocumented, with no comprehensive list or parameters or testcases. The absolute spaghetti code of abused parser functions in Template:TennisMatch are ripe for Lua replacement, but I don't really have a good way to test if I'm understanding it correctly. I created a stopgap testcases page based on Australia Davis Cup team results (1905–1949), but I really don't know if I'm testing everything. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey guys – hope everyone's doing well. In response to concern over the colours and lack of symbols, legend, etc. in the seeded players tables in major articles, I created {{Tennis tournament seeded players legend}} and trialled the new system in the most recent AO articles while fixing the overall formatting of the tables/sections in general (see men's and women's singles); several other editors seemed to go along with the new system and continue updating the tables accordingly, so thought I'd float it here and see if we can make it permanent moving forward (and back – would be good to update the articles of previous tournaments as well). The original discussion was here – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You do need to add a parameter to the key to show no eliminated colors/symbols. When an event is over all those eliminated colors have traditionally been removed as unnecessary, so the key should show that aspect also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think making all of the parameters optional (which is how you'd achieve what you're saying) is a great idea; plus, that's in pretty stark contrast to what you said in the aforementioned discussion...

This whole table is highly unusual in Wikipedia as we are not supposed to be a ticker-tape or revolving data. All these pink color cells are going to be removed once the event is over and that is not the way wikipedia is supposed to work at all. Data isn't supposed to be added and then removed.

...which I absolutely agree with, by the way. So let's not overcomplicate the issue – let's just have 'eliminated' as the permanent parameter and leave the 'eliminated' cells in tables moving forward, as we probably always should have. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

For posterity I want to clarify. Wikipedia doesn't like ticker tape data that we add while an event is running and then remove because it's useless later. Wikipedia would rather we wait till all is over and then add the correct data just once. We are an encyclopedia not a sports betting site. That said, I can see why readers want the info in real time... it is somewhat helpful. But it is useless once the event is over. So I like the chart and changes you made but we would still have to remove the useless "eliminated data" once the event ends (like we have always done). One of those exceptions to the rules. I hope that's clearer now. My bad in the prior posts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Not a fan of applying the 'exception to the rule' mentality here – we don't have to remove the data once the event is over; if we're going to go the effort of adding it in the first place, I say just leave it there. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

If that were the case I would never add it to begin with as it is contrary to Wikipedia MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Separate to the above thread, I also wanted to discuss how to approach multiple countries of representation in player infoboxes. I see several current players (e.g. the woman of the moment, Elena Rybakina), but not all, where the current country is listed first, whereas most applicable past players that I've seen (e.g. Monica Seles, Ana Ivanovic) have them listed chronologically. I feel that this is something we should be consistent with, and I am strongly of the opinion that they should just be listed chronologically like everything else in the infobox, as it takes subjectivity out of it rather than picking and choosing when to give added prominence to something. Keen to get everyone's thoughts – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree with chronological.--Wolbo (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I would go with current country on top. Readers want to know what nation this player is registered with today... not 11 years ago. I think placing that info on the bottom of a list "in the infobox" is not our best choice. Everything in the infobox should really already be in the body somewhere so we don't even need countries they've played for in the past crammed into a crowded infobox. We took out "past coaches" and we don't show past rankings, or past win/loss record. And while I am not advocating for past national sports affiliations to be excluded, it seems like if we keep them the old affiliations should be more afterthoughts when compared to who they play for today. This is a minor issue but since you asked I'm giving an opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Past countries shouldn't be buried or an 'afterthought', much less excluded from the infobox; in most cases, we're only talking about two countries here, so listing them chronologically isn't exactly going to bury the current one (especially when they're already listed close to the top of the infobox) – it's not as if this is going to be an accessibility issue. Plus, how would you or I know what all readers want? I'm just trying to approach this logically; everything else in the infobox is listed chronologically (just as every other sports player infobox – Australian rules football, basketball, cricket, soccer, etc. – lists clubs chronologically), and this should be no exception. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

There really isn't anything else in the infobox handled chronologically that way. Only the results and they are on the same wrap-around line. That's not the same in the least as what country a player represents. I simply expect that to be first and foremost current. Look, if everyone wants to put the oldest one or two countries first it's not like I'm going to complain. I'll conform and I'll fix infoboxes if they change from conformity. But you asked here and I told you what I think and gave you reasons of why I feel it's better to place the country they represent "today" first and foremost. There are plenty of things in agreed-to charts I think are wrong, but Wikipedia is about compromising to get the best chart that most can agree with. That's what I try to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion but it's probably easier to use the most recent country being represented at the top because its the first one people will look at, especially for currently active players. QWisps (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Would you apply that same logic to past players, though? I don't understand how that makes it easier. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 06:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I would because its the country they most recently represented. Also, information at the top draws the eye at first glance. QWisps (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I just find this to be very backwards logic – I don't know of any other instance, at least as far as infoboxes, where elements are listed in reverse chronological order like that purely to "draw the eye" away from previous (which in some players' cases might be majority of their career) and onto current; maybe some people are genuinely more interested in finding out what country/ies the player represented previously, who knows? We shouldn't assume one way or the other. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You’re the second person here who claims to have the special knowledge what all readers are looking for. Do you have any evidence to support that stance. Tvx1 16:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to weigh in? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Always tough to get folks here on even really important issues. I will put this out there.... if a week goes by since your original post, and it's still 2-2, I will step back and let it go chronologically with the current country in the lesser position. I think it's wrong, but better to get it done with. If someone later wants it to re-open then I will go right back to opposing. I just don't want future editors thinking I agree in any way, only that it's minor in the scheme of things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

in my opinion, when you are reading anything that is factual information about someone or something, it is always better when it is on chronological order, it prevents it from being confusing and for me it makes more sense and organized Haddad Maia fan (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Well that's not entirely true. Look at the lead of Elena Rybakina. The lead, like the infobox, is a synopsis of what is already in prose. The lead doesn't hit you over the head in the first sentence with Rybakina was a Russian professional tennis player who later became a Kazakhstani professional tennis player. It says she is a Kazakhstani professional tennis player. It's much more important for whom she has played for the last 8 years. But the fact it is now 3–2 in favor of eldest nation on top makes things easier here (even if I disagree). Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You’re incorrectly assuming that the recentmost nationality represented is always the most important one though. In case of Rybakina that holds true, but if you look at other examples like Yan Zi, the time near the end of her career when she represented Hong Kong was alomst insignificant in comparison with almost the entirity of her career she spent representing PR China and during which she and her doubles partner became the very first players of that country to win any grand slam title and also wrote olympic history. Tvx1 16:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I should have worded that differently, I agree. Someone like Ivan Lendl would similarly have had his most meaningful results from his prior nationality. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Since I see no other's weighing in, chronologically it is. I'll fix when I see them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

In my sandbox, I'm gathering together the pieces and parts to create articles for the current W50 taking place in Orlando and I don't know what to name the articles. There is a fact sheet on the USTA website that shows Promo Name as "W50 Orlando FL" PDF.

Maybe these names?

• 2026 W50 Orlando ITF Women's Tennis Tournament
• 2026 W50 Orlando ITF Women's Tennis Tournament – Singles
• 2026 W50 Orlando ITF Women's Tennis Tournament – Doubles

—Scottyoak2 (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I think those names are great, but usually we create a general article for the tournament itself and then we create others for each specific edition and draws Haddad Maia fan (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

So... Is the current tournament (W50 Orlando) a part of this: Orlando USTA Pro Circuit Event? Looking at that article's table of past finals, I see that 2022–3 actually links to 2022 Orlando USTA Pro Circuit Event 2 – Singles. Should the title of the new article be 2026 W50 Orlando USTA Pro Circuit (ITF women's tennis tournament)? I'm not sure what is the best title for the article, since there are multiple tournaments held in Orlando each year. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, being a W something tournament already implies that it is an ITF women’s tournament and also, if the tournament doesn’t have an official name by the organizers, I believe that this generic name is the best we have Haddad Maia fan (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)